Schumer calls for hearings on SCOTUS decision (The Hill, 1/21)

[pinto]

Schumer calls for hearings on SCOTUS decision
By Tony Romm and Michael O'Brien - 01/21/10 12:34 PM ET

The Supreme Court's ruling striking down limits on corporate and union spending in elections is "un-American," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Thursday.

Additionally, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a top Senate Democrat who formerly ran their campaign committee, said he would hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.

"I think it's an un-American decision," Van Hollen said at a press conference along side Schumer on Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today."

<snip>

The law, until this ruling, had subject corporations to special spending limits and disclosure rules that did not apply to individuals.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the sponsor of that 2002 law, has called for new legislation to address the court's ruling. Schumer said Thursday he'd hold hearings as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee.

"As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I'm announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks," Schumer said.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77293-schumer-voters-lose-in-supreme-courts-campaign-finance-ruling

[corpseratemedia]

1. good!

although I'm sure Big Business and it's military arm are in it for the long haul, the law of unintended consequences is starting to take effect. roberts is being exposed as a liar.

perhaps no 1000 year permanent reich for the gop or the NWO

[Lifelong Protester]

2. I say, go Chuck.

Quick, direct, immediate. Time's come to quit waiting around with the 'long reaction' time. I like this.

[Tansy_Gold]

3. "Quick, direct, immediate" --- but not until we hold hearings in

a couple of weeks. . . . .



So much for quick, direct, and immediate.






TG

[struggle4progress]

5. You might prefer they pass something quickly without thinking much about it?

[Tansy_Gold]

8. I said nothing whatsoever about what I'd prefer

I was just pointing out that "quick, direct and immediate" is hardly the way to describe action that hasn't taken place yet and won't take place (if ever) until hearings are held and the hearings won't be held for at least "a couple weeks."

It's rather akin to congratulating a president for all the things he says he's going to do sometime in the future, kinda like that "mission accomplished" banner, y'know?



TG

[struggle4progress]

9. Quick, then, Tansy: post your proposed corrective legislative text, with some supporting analysis

of CU v FEC to indicate why your proposed correction will pass through the courts unmolested; and if you have an extra minute, give us a rough bean-count indicating what parts will meet approval from the Congress and what parts might be amended

[Tansy_Gold]

10. What the hell are you jumping all over me for?

All I said was, essentially, that it's kinda dumb -- in my ever so humble opinion -- to describe Schumer's call for hearings to be held in a couple of weeks as "quick, decisive, and immediate" action.

Here's the thing --

Was the case of CU V FEC secret? Did no one in congress or the administration know this case was being tried by the SCOTUS? If they knew about it -- and something tells me they did -- why were they not prepared for a "negative" ruling? Were they so certain the conservative-packed court would go their way? Were they shocked, shocked at the decision? It sure sounds that way.

Alan Grayson's action of introducing bills, circulating petitions, etc. is much more "quick, decisive, and immediate" than Schumer's, and I'm not saying Schumer's is wrong. I'm just saying it's not quick decisive and immediate. Okay, okay, his call for hearings is, but that's just jawboning, it's not action, and it sure as hell isn't proactive. Neither is Grayson's -- it's reactive and it might not even be very effective, but he is DOING something, not talking about talking about maybe doing something.

This whole thing makes the Democrats look stupid, like they were caught totally unprepared, with their pants down, however you want to characterize it. Given the particulars of the case -- the anti-Hillary film -- and given what happened to John Kerry in '04, the Dems should have been been prepared with "corrective legislation" to be proposed within 10 minutes of the ruling. Certainly Russ Feingold should have.



TG

[Lifelong Protester]

11. Egads, didn't mean to cause a kerfufle here

What I was meaning, and obviously not expressing very well with my jotted off post, was that I was happy that there was some ACTION or at least proposed action. Sometimes it seems like Dems ruminate and ruminate, and never even SUGGEST they are going to fight back, or at least have a counter argument. Seems like the Dems 'roll over' a lot. Just glad to have someone out there scrappin' for a change.

I want to see some response immediately, and if possible decisive, rather than let things go by with a little 'oh, that's really bad' and nothing else.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. The kerfluffle, if there was one, wasn't with you so much, just with

the words chosen. And yeah, sometimes we don't get our meaning exactly clear when we send off a quick post.

And i agree that it's, well, nice that Schumer is doing SOMETHING, even if it's only announcing that he's going to hold hearings, because even that is more than nothing.

But as Bob Herbert says in today's NYT column, with thanks to chimpymustgo, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7552531

"What we’ll get instead is rhetoric. It’s cheap, so we can expect a lot of it."

That's why I said Grayson did more than Schumer. Grayson actually appeared to be prepared for what was coming. He had his bills ready and he hit the ground running.

Now we have to wait -- again -- while Schumer gets his hearings set up and then we can wait -- again -- to see what everyone has to say in the hearings and then we can wait -- again -- to see what Schumer proposes after the hearings. So the rhetoric was quick (and cheap) but the action is yet to come.

Hey, friend, we're all on the same page here. :hi: We may not have all the details worked out and we may misunderstand each other now and then, but dialogue works to get the meaning clear.



Tansy Gold (whose typos were pretty clear, too :-( )

[Lifelong Protester]

15. Thanks for the response, and I too have to wonder

why Grayson seemed to be the only one on it, as I received his email petitions the night before.

But why just the night before? How come more Dems weren't on that? Or Repubs, for that matter? I hear they are worried about union money (which frankly, I can't imagine can match corporate dough, but I could be wrong).

Someone will have to correct me (I'm off to do chores and don't have the time to sit here at the computer right now) but wasn't there something on the front page of the NYTimes (web edition) that suggested that the Supremes sort of 'dug down in the sack' to put this case on some sort of fast track docketing (at least as fast as they can move)?

Sure seems that we should have known something about this earlier, although a preemptive against an unknown ruling is a little hard to pull off.

And you, and Bob Herbert, are correct. Less rhetoric, and more action.

Back at ya! B-)

[Dr.Phool]

16. Hey, give Shoomer a break.

You think he can cover Wall Streets ass, and yours at the same time?

[Tansy_Gold]

17. I cut NOBODY a break, Doc, and you should know that.

:hi:



Not even



Tansy Gold

[peace frog]

4. Of course "it's an un-American decision"

but will these hearings lead to decisive action to render the decision null and void, rather than just give them a forum in which to blow a lot of hot air.

[clear eye]

6. Hearings... Sen. Schumer has still not signed on to FENA which has waited in the wings for years.

FENA, or the Fair Elections Now Act, would establish voluntary public financing for all elegible U.S. Congressional races. It is not a complete answer to this problem, but it is a start, and Schumer, unlike the other NY Senator, isn't a cosponsor.

I withold my judgment on these "hearings". If they lead to even a credible threat to impeach one or more of the majority Justices for allowing non-citizens to potentially control U.S. elections, they'll mean something. Or if they lead to a viable Constitutional amendment, they'll mean something, although going that route would allow the mega-corporations time to buy enough political influence to scuttle it. I just don't know about "hearings".

[CHIMO]

7. Just Think

Now foreign countries can influence American politics. In an election.

[bemildred]

12. If the justices overreach, you must impeach. nt

[LiberalEsto]

14. Go, Van Hollen!

He's OUR congresscritter! Maryland Disstrict 8.

:yourock:

[CJCRANE]

18. Isn't there a national security issue involved

if foreign corporations have unlimited ability to campaign in American elections?

I can't imagine any other developed country would put up with foreign interference in their elections.